posted at 8:41 pm on January 5, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

Legit sanction for abuse of authority, or an infringement on academic freedom? Missouri state legislators want Melissa Click canned for her actions in a protest at the University of Missouri, in which she threatened a student journalist by calling for “some muscle” when he insisted on covering the demonstration. The letter sent to Mizzou has the signatures of a majority in both chambers of the state’s assembly:

The University of Missouri professor who called for “some muscle” to toss a reporter out of a demonstration on public property could be the one who gets bounced, after state lawmakers on Monday demanded that she be fired.

Communications Professor Melissa Click made national news in November, when she tried to have a student reporter on assignment for ESPN thrown off the quad during a racially charged protest.

“Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here?” Click yelled out after reporter Tim Tai refused to leave in an incident caught on video. “I need some muscle over here.” …

Now, more than 100 House Republicans and 18 Senate members from the state Legislature have signed a letter to the school’s board of curators demanding Click’s “immediate firing.”

“The fact that, as a professor teaching the communication department and the school of journalism, she displayed such a complete disregard for the First Amendment rights of reporters should be enough to question her competency and aptitude for her job,” reads the letter, penned by Rep. Caleb Jones and Sen. Kurt Schaefer.

Golly, if they kick her out, how can Mizzou undergrads properly study Fifty Shades of Grey and Twilight? The threat to shut down speech at Mizzou has the Kansas City Star’s Barbara Shelly unhappy. Not Click’s threats to shut down speech, but the state legislators’ implied threat to Mizzou funding in their letter to the university:

Click was unprofessional and wrong. She called for “some muscle” to help her confront one journalist, while ignoring the fact that the university quad, where the protests were ongoing, is a public space and therefore open to the media and others.

Maybe she should be fired. Or maybe the greater body of her work argues in favor of her remaining on the faculty. I really don’t know. Neither do most of the legislators who signed the letter.

But the purpose of the letter isn’t just to get Click fired. It is to tell the University of Missouri system that the state legislature is prepared to meddle in personnel matters and other internal affairs that shouldn’t be the jurisdiction of politicians.

And the not-so-implicit threat is always this: We fund you, so do what we say.

Well, Click was more than just “unprofessional and wrong”; she threatened a student with violence for accessing public space and tried to intimidate him from reporting on a legitimate news story. She didn’t act just to “confront” the journalist, which Click had already done — she went to find someone else who would push Tim Tai out of the area, or worse. That is, after all, what “some muscle” means. If a professor under any other circumstances threatened a student with violence in order to intimidate them into silence, would Shelly be so quick to shrug it off? Perhaps, say, if a school administrator threatened to find a student to push an Occupy protester around in an attempt to intimidate him/her?

Shelly misses the point on her other argument, too. Public universities are — and should be — accountable to the people’s representatives for how they spend their money. If one wants to work for a university without any public funds, the state of Missouri must have a number of private colleges with professorships, although the demand for Fifty Shades of Grey majors might be on the low side. Perhaps Click might have better luck in California on that score. The nonsensical and unserious nature of her topics should have legislators asking questions about how Mizzou spends its money, although the demand issued in the letter clearly is meant to address the threat rather than the silly, pop-culture, lightweight academics of Click’s oeuvre.

The backlash against the changes at Mizzou is likely to continue, led by self-styled defenders of the First Amendment (which protects free speech). Yet the First Amendment does not give people a free pass to go round saying hateful things, points out Mr Henson. To help students and faculty realise this, Mizzou has developed a new guide to “inclusive terminology” which ensures a healthy level of respect for all minority groups. It includes terms such as “adultism” (prejudice against the young), “minoritised” (when under-represented groups are made to feel inferior) and intersextionality (obscure). Some will see this stuff as movement in the right direction. But it is also likely to increase the ire of those who watched the protests and thought they saw a group of privileged college students complaining about how terrible their lot is.

Yes, actually, that’s precisely what the First Amendment does. It protects unpopular speech, because popular speech doesn’t need much protection. There are limits to this, of course, but those have to do with specific incitement to violence, copyright infringement, and libel/slander laws. “Hateful” speech might be unpleasant, but the state has no authority to silence it.

I suspect Mizzou’s going to feel a lot of adultism in the coming months, most of it directed at the supposed adults in charge. And they will deserve every bit of it.

Click was more than just “unprofessional and wrong”; she threatened a student with violence for accessing public space and tried to intimidate him from reporting on a legitimate news story. She didn’t act just to “confront” the journalist, which Click had already done — she went to find someone else who would push Tim Tai out of the area, or worse. That is, after all, what “some muscle” means.

That’s the kicker for me. A professor instigated violence against a student. She called for violence to be committed against him. In what world should such a person be allowed to continue teaching other students?

I do quite a bit of E/O work and yes, this type of action will lead either to her dismissal or a non renewal of her contract. Which will lead to a Suit. Bear in mind that if she is a “Tenured” “professor” she cannot be removed for cause.

These liberal art students and professers got it made. Thankfully Tenure is getting to be a thing of the past.

The past: When teachers and professors were honorable and had some shred of integriy

I live in Missouri and you wouldn’t believe how cheap Mizzou memorabilia is these days. No one wants to be caught wearing anything identifying themselves as supporters and/or alumni. The university is an embarrassment. The legislators are taking action I believe the majority of Missourians support.

This article may very well explain why we are seeing this type of nonsense on college campuses:

Option B – Defund Mizzou – completely and permanently – and let the faculty spend one night locked in an auditorium the night before their gravy train ends. My money is Click isn’t alive the next morning.

Seems to me she should have been charged with inciting violence and assault, charged, jailed, and be awaiting prosecution in a trial. Why isn’t the legislature going after the university cops and the local prosecutor?

The fact that, as a professor teaching the communication department and the school of journalism, she displayed such a complete disregard for the First Amendment rights of reporters should be enough to question her competency and aptitude for her job

Seems to me there are a lot of professors at many universities and colleges that fit this description as well.

But the purpose of the letter isn’t just to get Click fired. It is to tell the University of Missouri system that the state legislature is prepared to meddle in personnel matters and other internal affairs that shouldn’t be the jurisdiction of politicians.

First, Mizzou is publicly funded and those funds are managed by legislature so, in the end, it is their jurisdiction.

Second, they wouldn’t be taking this action if Mizzou had properly chastised this idiot. The little slap on the wrist did not go far enough. She should’ve at least been suspended without pay for a period of time.

^ … What, exactly? That you think I’m going to take a position counter to what I believe just to curry favor with HumpBot? Have you seen our interactions? No, I believe she’s a farceful disgrace and should have been sacked a long time ago. HumpBot doesn’t get to define my positions by pretending I believe otherwise.

GWB
I think it’s just a matter of your interpretation. You’re taking it to mean that I’m calling him/her out for ignoring something I posted before he did. I meant it to highlight the fact that he’s/she’s trying to paint me as the opposite of what my actual position is, which HumpBot didn’t know but presumed to. It’s kind of like an ICYMI statement. Pretty minor, in the larger picture, but I do understand the confusion. Be well.

So I’m repeating it special, just for you. Any more projection you’d like to engage in?

CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 12:41 PM

Projection. Cool, we found yet another word you don’t know the meaning off. Neat.

Here’s a cookie O for making a comment 12 hours after my comment that she should be fired. And so what, it’s obvious to all who read your comments that your beliefs and ideology don’t stray too far from carrot tops. Sorry for it…but it’s obvious.

HumpBot
So now if I agree with you on an issue, I don’t really agree with you, because your narrow mind doesn’t allow for the possibility. Got it. Carry on. But don’t pretend this isn’t a troll move on your part. This is why you can’t be taken seriously.

HumpBot
So now if I agree with you on an issue, I don’t really agree with you, because your narrow mind doesn’t allow for the possibility. Got it. Carry on. But don’t pretend this isn’t a troll move on your part. This is why you can’t be taken seriously.

CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 3:10 PM

Reading comprehension fail on your part. Maybe you should reconsider if this whole internet commenting thing is really your thing.

LOL, yeah because you agree on this one minuscule issue that Ms. cray-cray in MO should be fired means we share the same ideology and that you share conservative beliefs with those here. You truly are stupid and that is why NO ONE takes you seriously, troll.

Share some other conservative beliefs that you’ve espoused on this website. I’d be interested to see them.

HumpBot
This is why you’re a troll. You’ve gone totally OT to make the thread about me. I’ve been critical of Hillary, the coddled campus movement and overly PC-stances, just to name three off the top of my head. I’ve spoken out against many points from the so-called trolls on here when their statements have been ridiculously overreaching. Not that you’d allow that I’ve really been critical of them, amirite?

HumpBot
This is why you’re a troll. You’ve gone totally OT to make the thread about me. I’ve been critical of Hillary, the coddled campus movement and overly PC-stances, just to name three off the top of my head. I’ve spoken out against many points from the so-called trolls on here when their statements have been ridiculously overreaching. Not that you’d allow that I’ve really been critical of them, amirite?

CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 3:39 PM

No sweetie, I’m responding to you. That’s not off topic..and my comments are directed to you not inflaming the commenting base here. Sure my first comment was to ridicule you but as you’ve proved on most threads…it was welled deserved.

And no…you haven’t spoken out against any of the trolls here. In fact, you’ve +1 them many ,many times.

Cool you named 3 things and two of them are basically the same issue. Wow, critical of Hillary…I must have missed that. Point some out to me.

Uh, go back upthread to your first comment—you were talking about me when I hadn’t even commented on this thread to begin with. It’s plain for anyone to see. I know it’s hard to recognize your own obsessions, but you might want to look into it.

Uh, go back upthread to your first comment—you were talking about me when I hadn’t even commented on this thread to begin with. It’s plain for anyone to see. I know it’s hard to recognize your own obsessions, but you might want to look into it.

Sure my first comment was to ridicule you but as you’ve proved on most threads…it was welled deserved.

…

HumpBot Salvation on January 6, 2016 at 3:45 PM

And you want to compare OT comments on this thread alone or any other thread. LOL, you’d lose.

CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 12:41 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:09 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:14 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:20 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:23 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:51 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 3:10 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 3:39 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM

CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 12:41 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:09 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:14 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:20 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:23 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 1:51 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 3:10 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 3:39 PM
CivilDiscourse on January 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM

As a native Kansas son I’m used to the KC Star’s lunatic left tower of babbling, like deranged Barbara Shelly’s infantile whining hypocritically giving vile Click a free pass you can be sure she’d never do for one who wasn’t of her own sick ilk. How ironic the surest bastion for anti-free speech solidarity should now be universities!